It's my cash, I'll spend on Wikileaks if I choose to

[Gob]

Or maybe I won't.

Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal, have decided that I cannot give my money to Wikileaks.

My money? Which they profit from?

Fuck them, I've written to them asking on what grounds they have the right to deny me the choice of sending MY FUCKING money to a legitimate organisation.

I had no intention of giving Wikileaks any cash.

Until this morning.

I think I'm good for 50 bucks now.

[Gob]

Dear Gob,

Thanks for contacting PayPal. I appreciate the opportunity to assist you
with your questions.

I have reviewed your account and cannot see any payment attempts which
were refused. If you are speaking of the Wikileaks site which has
generated alot of publicity recently, for security reasons we cannot
discuss any details of a PayPal account with a third party. The status
of a PayPal account can only be discussed with the account holder to
ensure that sensitive account information is not disclosed. For more
information regarding WikiLeaks donations, we advise you to contact the
organization called Wau Holland used to raise funds for WikiLeaks.

For more information regarding WikiLeaks and/or your donation, or for a
refund, we advise you to contact the organization called Wau Holland
used to raise funds for WikiLeaks.

Thanks for your email. For more helpful information about using your
account, visit http://www.youtube.com.au/paypalau or alternatively you
can contact us direct on 1800–073–263.

Apologies for any inconvenience or frustration caused whilst trying to
resolve this issue.

Sincerely,
Collette

[Sean]

I love the irony that they do not wish to disclose any "sensitive account information" about Wikileaks.

[Gob]

And the bitch used the word "alot", a pet peeve of mine.

[Sean]

I think you'll find that 'alot' isn't a word...

[Gob]

That's why it's a pet peeve of mine...

[Sean]

*stores away infomation for future use*

[Gob]

LOL!!

[Sean]

Don't worry, I won't use it alot.

[Gob]

Bitch!!!!

[oldr_n_wsr]

Visa and Mastercard have suspended taking any money headed towards wikileaks (and thus have had their websites spammed to the point of shutdown). And your paypal is probably backed up by one of those cards thus your paypal won't take your money either.

[Lord Jim]

I applaud Master Card, Visa, PayPal, and any other company that decides that the will not let Asswipeange and Co. to use their services, (to which scum boy has no entitlement) to further their illegal activities.

[Long Run]

It also seems to me that to make money off of someone's stolen property (information) is an easier crime to prove than the espionage/treason/etc. on the table now. It is one thing to end up with stolen property. It is another to use it (by disseminating it in this case). And yet another to make money off of it. Ironic that those who send money may be ensuring jail time for the recipient they want to help.

[Gob]

I applaud Master Card, Visa, PayPal, and any other company that decides that the will not let Asswipeange and Co. to use their services, (to which scum boy has no entitlement) to further their illegal activities.

1. No illegality has yet been proved.
2. What if the above firms decided to deny you the right to donate to the Republican party Jim?
3. It's my money, why should they choose who it goes to?

[Scooter]

It also seems to me that to make money off of someone's stolen property (information) is an easier crime to prove than the espionage/treason/etc. on the table now. It is one thing to end up with stolen property. It is another to use it (by disseminating it in this case). And yet another to make money off of it. Ironic that those who send money may be ensuring jail time for the recipient they want to help.

If I accept your legal theory (which I don't) it also applies to pretty much every news organization in the world that has generated advertising and subscription revenue from issues re-publishing this stuff.

[Lord Jim]

3. It's my money, why should they choose who it goes to?

They're not choosing who your money goes to....

They're choosing whether or not they want their business involved in helping this organization gather funds.

Which they have a perfect right to do.

[Gob]

But it's my money, and they are using their virtual monopoly powers in a political manner.

[Long Run]

If I accept your legal theory (which I don't) it also applies to pretty much every news organization in the world that has generated advertising and subscription revenue from issues re-publishing this stuff.

The amount I know about criminal law can be written on small piece of paper. But I do believe there is quite a difference between news organizations which are covering a story and an organization which is making the story. Even at that, I think there was some talk of possible prosecution of the NY Times for this (which would be a bad move).

[Scooter]

Depends on how you define "the story". If the leaks is the "story", then Wikileaks is just reporting on what has been leaked.

[Long Run]

If the classified information had been given directly to the New York Times and it then published the information, the Times would be in the same situation as Assange*. But here, Assange is the only one who was given the stolen information. He could have notified the authorities and destroyed it. Instead he made money from it by disseminating it. Once the info was released, any news organization could report on the information as it was already in the public domain. At least that is how I understand this story to this point.

*I guess the Times would have a better defense as a legitimate news organization with 1st amendment types at their ready. My guess is that the Times probably would have done redaction from the very beginning, or work out some sort of deal with the U.S. government on the reporting of the information.